Writer's Block

[Slag_Bandoon]

Writer's block?

What's that?

Classic.

[JakaB]

Tommy,

Its difficult for me to continue a disjointed conversation as I have been busy since my last post so I will answer your questions....

No I have not read any book on Architecture and doubt if I ever will...I just don't see how knowing the why will provoke me in deciding how to spend my where.   I want to enjoy cross-bunkers, quirk, blindness and the like for there own sake and not due to any intent or predisposed formula that may or may have not led to their creation.  I need to eliminate the critical aspect that may try to spoil my enjoyment of a recreational moment and it concerns me knowing what should have, could have or would have been has no place in what is...and I'm only there to play what is.  This does not make me consumed in my score as for the first time in my golfing life I can have the greatest of days based on the simplest of single shots...or bounces...or the perfect mix of rain and warmth...or a fresh slice of tomato with the perfect amount of Miracle Whip on a diagonal cut ham sandwich on really, really fresh bread and a super chilled diet root beer in a bottle....or my most favorite...34 degree windless weather on hard frozen bent grass fairways and frozen greens...I just got to much good going to read about it...but I might be a bit jealous that you find so much happiness and passion in something that really shouldn't break your heart....speaking of that on to Fazio.

Questioning the desire or motives of modern architects when compared to classic architects should be beneath a serious student of the game like yourself.....Greatness survives and pop culture thrives so what is gone and what is being done should eventually create what is left...if this is what the majority of consumers in a capitalist society choose to allow...its only survival of the finest.   Now if this breaks your heart you are just another casualty of love...baby.

[CHrisB]

I need to eliminate the critical aspect that may try to spoil my enjoyment of a recreational moment and it concerns me knowing what should have, could have or would have been has no place in what is...and I'm only there to play what is.

Wow, these words jumped off the screen at me.  This is exactly why I hesitate to become too deeply immersed in the study of golf course architecture, because I consider myself a player of the game first and a student of the game (with GCA being just one of many important subjects) second.  The last thing I would ever want to happen is for me to become distracted from the thrill of playing the game by a course or feature that I didn't like.  I guess this is why I can play courses like the Preserve or Spanish Bay and say, "Wow, that was really enjoyable.--I really liked x, y, and z about the course...", while others can't get it out of their mind that the courses could have been better than they were.

...what should have, could have or would have been has no place in what is...and I'm only there to play what is."

 
These words hit home with me.  In considering courses and architecture, and certainly while playing the game, I'm most interested in what is.  

In earlier threads on the Preserve, as an example, I really tried to detail what I liked about the course, its holes, and its strategies.  While there was much criticism about the course, the vast majority of it could basically be summed up into "few strategic options; he could have gotten much more out of it", without much detail about what exactly it was he could have gotten, or what should have been there in place of what actually is there.  I'd rather have discussed what is there--"here's what I like and don't like about hole #9"..."what are the strategic options of the 15th hole?"...etc. (this seems to be what Adam is trying to do with Spanish Bay on another thread)--instead of discussing in vague terms that it wasn't as good as it could have been.  

It would be a shame to play a good golf course, miss what is there because you're too busy imagining what could have been there, distract yourself from a good round of golf, and come away disappointed.  But I know it happens.

But there is another danger to which I am more vulnerable; that is, missing wonderful architecural details because I am too immersed in playing the game.  One of my regrets in golf is that I was too busy trying to post a score at Dornoch that I missed a lot of its genius.  I wish I had it to do over, but Dornoch is a long way from TX...

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I don't think the average golfers of the so called Golden Age were any different than JakaB or ChrisB. I'd guess the majority of them didn't care too much about golf architecture. Maybe due to the smaller more closely related golf population, there may have been a slightly higher percentage who cared, but certainly not the majority.

Like Barney said there is always going to be popular culture. Through the years we can look at certain pop fads, golf is not immune to the pop mentality. Not only is golf effected by it, every one of us effected by it to a large degree. Today we love our fast food, our favorite TV shows are reality shows, our radio shows combine humor and shock, very few read, very few vote, life is pretty good, we have so many leisure activities, we expect to be entertained--thinking and leisure really aren't conducive. Many of today's golf architects are either products of this mentality or are tailoring their work to this way of thinking. Golf architects of yesterday had it much easier, less competition, it was simpler day, I don't think they cared if they satisfied ChrisB or JakaB, I get the impression they designed more to satisify themselves.

[Dr._Katz]

Mr JakaB:

Do not consume yourself with such critical and self critical thoughts and posts. Put yourself in my care and I can almost warrantee you that you will be hunky doo doo in a most very short time.

Yours truly,

Dr. Katz

[CHrisB]

Tom M,

I don't think you intended this, but someone reading your last post might conclude that JakaB and I would rather just play the game, that we don't/can't mix thought and leisure, that we exhibit the pop mentality w.r.t. golf course architecture, and that we don't care too much about it.  After reading your post it sounds like you are saying "Alas, not everyone can be enlightened as we experts wish them to be", but again I hope that's not what you're really saying.

I won't speak for JakaB (could anyone?), but I can tell you that my appreciation for golf course architecture is closely intertwined with my passion for playing the game.  And you can't cleanly separate one from the other.  Quite simply, great course architecture above all else serves to make playing the game more interesting, ideally for all levels of play.  And you better believe I seek out and appreciate courses whose design and features (not to mention things like setting and routing which set the context in which the round will be played) make playing the game more interesting.

But--and this was my point in my last post--I am reluctant to let my enjoyment of playing the game be hampered by focusing too much on course features that I don't like or what I think "could have" or "should have" been done.  And that is the danger as a student of GCA.  This is especially true in tournament play, where it really behooves me to judge how the course features will affect my strategy, but not to evaluate them as good or bad architecture.  I don't mind reflecting on courses I've played and evaluating them and their features, but during play I try to read everything relevant to strategy, appreciate what is there, look for the good and focus on the interests and strengths of the course (no matter how difficult they might be to find!).

"Today we love our fast food, our favorite TV shows are reality shows, our radio shows combine humor and shock, very few read, very few vote, life is pretty good, we have so many leisure activities, we expect to be entertained--thinking and leisure really aren't conducive."--Agreed, but just be careful, Tom, whose name you attach closely to a statement like that.  You'd have to know someone pretty well to attach his name to that.

"Golf architects of yesterday had it much easier, less competition, it was simpler day, I don't think they cared if they satisfied ChrisB or JakaB..."--Tom, I'd be interested in reading, based on what you know about me and what I have posted, of what you think I need out of golf/architecture to be satisfied.  Please answer, because I'd like to know what impressions I am creating.

If you are really interested in exchanging ideas and increasing knowledge about an interesting subject (which I know you are), then I'd rather see you ask questions and get thoughtful answers from me instead of making assumptions, making generalizations, and slapping on labels.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

"This is exactly why I hesitate to become too deeply immersed in the study of golf course architecture, because I consider myself a player of the game first and a student of the game (with GCA being just one of many important subjects) second.  The last thing I would ever want to happen is for me to become distracted from the thrill of playing the game by a course or feature that I didn't like."

That says it all and there is nothing wrong with that attitude. You are in good company.

[Tom Macwood@columbus.rr.c]

ChrisB
I don't know anything about you, all I can do is read your words. Your agreement with Jaka's ramblings combined with you own comments tell me you are not unlike most golfers. The way I look it, golf is a great game, I can enjoy myself on the worst golf course, that enjoyment of the game does not prevent me from appreciating and focusing on great golf architecture, and looking at a design critically.

I do not believe the architects of the past worried about artisiticly satisfying the average golfer. I think they were interested in satisfying themsleves, as well as satisfying their colleagues and critics. If they satisfied themselves, their colleagues and critics, they knew everything else would fall into place.

[CHrisB]

ChrisB
I don't know anything about you, all I can do is read your words. Your agreement with Jaka's ramblings combined with you own comments tell me you are not unlike most golfers.

But Tom, that's not all you can do--you can also ask questions and get thoughtful answers.  My agreement was not with JakaB's ramblings but with the particular phrase I cited.  Don't become so confident with the subject and your ability to read people online that your perceptions are always accurate.  I can assure you that I am quite different from the vast majority of golfers (and people for that matter), but you'll have to take my word on it!  

The reason I am hesitant to become too critical of a design while playing it probably relates to the fact that I am a very deep thinker (to a fault sometimes) and tend to focus quite narrowly on things in which I am interested.  This definitely helps my competitive golf, but it means that I am reluctant to let anything else "in" while I'm playing the game unless it enhances my playing experience.  For me, I'm concerned that being overly critical of a course, hole, or feature might affect my playing experience, simply because it is generally more difficult to play well on holes/courses that you dislike.  So I try to evaluate what is there without looking at it too critically until later.

Just be responsible and considerate with your posting, Tom.  Normally your posts are thoughtful and enjoyable to read, but just make sure you know what you're talking about before you put it out there for all to see.  You just can't jump from

"This is exactly why I hesitate to become too deeply immersed in the study of golf course architecture, because I consider myself a player of the game first and a student of the game (with GCA being just one of many important subjects) second.  The last thing I would ever want to happen is for me to become distracted from the thrill of playing the game by a course or feature that I didn't like."

to

"I don't think the average golfers of the so called Golden Age were any different than JakaB or ChrisB. I'd guess the majority of them didn't care too much about golf architecture."

and

"Today we love our fast food, our favorite TV shows are reality shows, our radio shows combine humor and shock, very few read, very few vote, life is pretty good, we have so many leisure activities, we expect to be entertained--thinking and leisure really aren't conducive."

HUGE difference between not wanting to become too immersed and not caring, or not wanting to think.  Might as well say there is no difference between being careful not to drink too much and giving up drinking altogether.

Hopefully I've explained myself and you know me and my position just a little better.

CB

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

In my mind there is no difference, between become too deeply immersed in the architecture for fear of becoming distracted from the thrill of playing the game and not letting thought/discernment interfere with your most basic satisfaction.

[Slag_Bandoon]

Dr. Katz, I think I'm developing a case of Reader's Block.  

"My analyst told me
That I was right out of my head.
He said I need treatment.
That I was better off dead.

And that I was the kind
That was most inclined
When out of his sight
To be out of my mind. ..."  

Annie Ross & Wardell Grey    

[ForkaB]

I'm not sure how a thread on "Writer's Block" morphed into this, since, from JakaB and ChrisB at least, there has been some excellent thinking and writing.  (Do the "B"s represent "Brothers separated at birth?").

Chris, I like you, am continually frustrated by participants who post hit and run accounts of courses or holes they don't like--for what ever reason--rather than explain why they don't like them and why this dislike should be of any importance to us, as students and players of the game, and its architecture.  This superficiality (whether caused by laiziness and/or arrogance) detracts from making this site the great learning experience it can be, when it is at its best.  Unfortunately, too often it just resembles a relatively articulate pissing contest.  Perhaps that is why some of us get "writers block" form time to time..........

Jaka, as usual, you comments make me think.  To me there is more love for and appreciation of golf course architecture in your writing than many of your antagonists are capable of recognizing or even willing to admit to.  Keep up the good work.

[George Pazin]

Chris, I like you, am continually frustrated by participants who post hit and run accounts of courses or holes they don't like--for what ever reason--rather than explain why they don't like them and why this dislike should be of any importance to us, as students and players of the game, and its architecture.  This superficiality (whether caused by laiziness and/or arrogance) detracts from making this site the great learning experience it can be, when it is at its best.  Unfortunately, too often it just resembles a relatively articulate pissing contest.  Perhaps that is why some of us get "writers block" form time to time..........

How do you get from ChrisB's post to this?

He states that he does not want to go too far in depth in thinking the course through. That's great - for him - what about the people who want to go further?

How can anyone learn anything under these guidelines???

P.S. didn't mean the smileys - got caught up in pat's multiple question marks.

[ForkaB]

George

I'll let Chris speak for himself, if he wishes, but my reading of his posts tells me that he very much appreciates GCA and all the other aspects of golf, but is frustrated by the generalities which characterize much of the discussion about GCA, particularly from many of the so-called "experts" and the righteous sarcasm of some who seem to think that Chris' way of enjoying and learning about GCA is somehow inferior to theirs because his methods of doing so are different.

These things frustrate me too.

I don't at all hear him saying anything at all about "not wanting to go into (GCA) in depth"--just that there are different ways to do this, with different emphases placed of different sources of learning, based on one's experiences and predilections.

This seems fine to me to.

PS--if you think those things on your post are "smileys" life must be brutal up in Pittsburgh these days (insert real smiley face here).

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

RichB
I don't think Chris liked me telling him he was like the majority of golfers of today, or yesterday for that matter, who would rather enjoy the game without thinking too deeply about the architecture. I'd put you in the same catagory, in fact you may be president of that catagory. Like I told him, he is in good company.

[TEPaul]

Man, I'll tell you, this website really amazes me sometimes. Golfclubatlas has the potential to produce some amazing stuff I doubt you'd ever find anywhwere else.

Others seem to have developed some writer's block recently. I know I sure haven't. Then I noticed a reference by Slag Bandoon to reader's block--that's me.

So I decided to really read this thread, particularly the exchange between JaKaB and TommyN, and those commenting on that exchange.

It's just great stuff. Many contributors to this site seem to get frustrated and then annoyed if other contributors don't stick strictly to discussing architecture per se. That kind of  frustration and annoyance has always been interesting to me in and of itself because I can't really figure out what's annoying them.

But we get contributors like JakaB (whose posts and writing I've certainly always really enjoyed--if for the very least it amazes me what actually goes through his mind and how interestingly he puts it down in text here--but frankly from the very beginning when he was flipping through various names to use here I've felt there is truly much to ponder in what he puts on here--very much). TommyN, I know very well and I'm quite certain I know pretty well where he's coming from on architecture.

Some constantly question why some of us keep trying to get so deep into the heads of architects (and their work) who have been dead for 50 -75 years. And why we read so much about them and their thoughts on architecture. Others question why some challenge the motivations of architects today.

So it seems that Golfclubatlas is two things really. A site were people really do like to discuss the particular merits of architectural things per se but also where contributors come to test and understand some things about themselves. These people, certainly including myself, are looking to have their own sometimes vague ruminations about golf and even architecture turned into stronger convictions through the consensus of others.

Is this learning? I suppose it is---although it's a rather self consumed way of going about it because it almost seems to demand agreement. It's not that often that a regular contributor who runs some vague rumination by this site actually appears to change his tune and accept in whole a contrary opinion or position of another contributor. That alone we all should wonder about. And of course, we should always ask ourselves--is it even necessary (as maddening as it may appear to be to others sometimes)?

But as to the architects and their products that we sometimes discuss per se in detail--how do they and what they were thinking about their products as far as our opinions of it come into this? Did they expect consensus and agreement on it by all golfers? That's a great and complex subject for another time, for sure.

Just some of MacKenzie's well known statements about truly trying to create controversy by what he offered in his architecture might be an interesting place to start that subject.

I gotta go, and don't think I won't have a lot more to say on this extremely interesting thread--I will.

But for the time being, I'd make the suggestion, maybe even the plea that we all try a bit harder not to proselytize with our own opinions and try harder not to bolster our own egos looking for consensus of the things we may think or even need.

And let's try to remember as much as possible something that most good architects must have felt deep in their bones for a whole variety of reasons, and that is,

"Golf and it's architecture is a great big game and there really is room in it for everyone!"

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Tom P

I agree that there are many ways of approaching GCA and that disagreement is one of the essential stimuli for learning.  I personally find that disagreeing civilly and with respect for the opinions of others is far more productive than the alternatives, but others seem to disagree with that opinion.

[THuckaby2]

This is great stuff, and I think it's hitting at the heart of my own personal "issues" re all of this, but you guys have me sort of confused.  I have said many times in here I do NOT consider myself a student of "golf course architecture" as a separate subject... but I always thought I was a student of "golf"... To me there's a big difference there that is very fundamental, but that I've never been able to adequately explain.

In any case, this hits very close to home for me:

"This is exactly why I hesitate to become too deeply immersed in the study of golf course architecture, because I consider myself a player of the game first and a student of the game (with GCA being just one of many important subjects) second.  The last thing I would ever want to happen is for me to become distracted from the thrill of playing the game by a course or feature that I didn't like."

And I am very grateful to ChrisB for these.  This is the best explanation of exactly how I feel that I've yet seen.  I'm not sure if I'm the "good company" to whom Tom M. refers, but I am company here anyway.  It hits me like a lightning bolt now that what I've always been trying to say is I am a player first, student second, and gca is just one of the subjects of the "study" in any case.  Thanks again for the clarity, Chris.  This might seem simple to you but damn it's always been very tough to nail down for me, and you've done it, my friend.  Your clarifications after that post are golden, also.

My confusion comes from where people went after this.

Tom P:  you state GCA is two things... you explain very well the first thing, which is the study... is ChrisB's "way" the second thing?

Rich G:  You state:

"I agree that there are many ways of approaching GCA and that disagreement is one of the essential stimuli for learning.  I personally find that disagreeing civilly and with respect for the opinions of others is far more productive than the alternatives, but others seem to disagree with that opinion."

What are the "alternatives"?  Coming to consensus?

My final question is for any of the many people from whom I do learn so much here.   I like to read about golf quite a bit.  I devour all books I can find on the subject of the greatest game there is.  But golf course architecture books in general leave me cold... I learned nothing from Hunter's "The Links", for example, and TommyN often cites that as one of the seminal works on the subject... To me it was just archaic and said nothing I hadn't heard many times in many other places... Not picking on that one example, my query is this:

I prefer to learn from experience, and ChrisB's quote might as well be my mantra for my approach to golf.  Yet, I also do like to read about the game, hell it's part of the experience... Like Chris, I never want to become so immersed that I walk courses rather than play them, with no offense to those who do choose to do this - it's just not my way.  So with all this long-winded explanation, the question is, what am I missing in the works of these old masters?  I swear I've read nearly all, and haven't gotten much out of any....

I ask this humbly and with a goal to learn and to get more out of them as I do find them interesting, anyway.  But keep in mind that player first, student second is always gonna be the way for me.

Or does that answer the question?

TH

[ForkaB]

TomH

Great post.  What I was trying to say is that the "alternative" is to disagree without civility and without respect for the opinions of others.  I've probably been guilty of this in the past, and for that I say mea culpa.  Unfortunately, I am not the only one with such guilt.

Rich

[THuckaby2]

Rich - very cool, you know me, I always assume there's something I'm missing.  OK, yeah, disagreeing and sniping and the like sure is the other way... and hell, we all fall to that from time to time, I know I have also.  Some find that fun but it surely doesn't help the learning process.  Well said.

TH

[Robert Hunter]

In most cases too little is yet given to the beauty, harmony, and grandeur of the finished product. When we build golf courses we are remodeling the face of nature, and it should be remembered that ‘the greatest and fairest things are done by nature and less by art’, as Plato truly said. What garden of the world equals some of the pictures nature paints? What modern golf course equals in beauty the seaside courses, and especially those which have been left from the touch of the architect? If there has been improvement in the art of constructing golf courses, it has been largely due to the willingness of the best architects to imitate humbly and lovingly what nature has placed before them . . . And when the finished product appears it so blends itself with the surrounding landscape that few can tell where nature ends and art begins.

[THuckaby2]

Good stuff, Mr. Hunter.  And I surely love your work on the ground in my area.

But the end result of reading that is... ok, that's great, but no lightning bolts.  Your whole book does that for me, no offense.  Maybe in the 30's it was revolutionary stuff, but it's all been said so many times since... perhaps not with your flair nor skill, but said nonetheless.

TH

[Robert Hunter]

This has been said before....by whom?

No lightning bolts, help me to understand what exactly that means....you said you learned absolutely nothing from my book.....what books have you learned from? What did you learn?

[THuckaby2]

Mr. Hunter:

I said it has been said SINCE, not before.  I guess the problem is mine - I read your book only after reading many others and living a long time in and around this game... So what I'm saying is, what you said may well have been revolutionary at the time of writing, but it is not now. Thus I question the relevance of your book today as anything but a neat historical jaunt.

Please understand I am a great admirer of your work though, and it thrills me to converse with you through this paranormal electronic medium, in any case.  

BTW, no lightning bolts means no "revelations".  My apologies for the poor phrasing... I am a humble player of the game, bear with me.

TH

[Robert Hunter]

I'll bear with you, please bear with me. Who has said it since?

What books have produced these lightning bolts for you? Share with us some of your revelations.